[Murphey circulated this statement to the Wichita State
University Faculty Senate in April, 2000, to make clear his reasons for not
being able to vote for a proposed resolution to add “sexual orientation” to the
list of “protected categories” at Kansas Regents institutions.Murphey was a member of the Senate.]

My Reasons for Opposing the Proposed Resolution for Adding “Sexual
Orientation” as a Protected Category at Regents Institutions

Almost forty years ago in my
book Emergent Man I wrote that there
seemed to be no need for a social taboo against homosexuality in a free society
based on a strong moral foundation, since humanity’s strong affinity toward
heterosexuality would assure the strength of monogamous marriage as one of
society’s essential pillars.

During
virtually the entire time since those words were written, however, the moral
foundation of American society has undergone prolonged ideological attack and
the structure of strong families based on heterosexual marriage has suffered a
drastic erosion.During those same
years, a deadly and infectious disease spread largely through homosexual
behavior has become a major social problem, and has been shielded by ideology
from the normal protections to the public that are applied to other infectious diseases.We find ourselves living in a context of
misshapen ideology—a mixture of egalitarianism, statism and alienation from
what the ideology has for many decades seen as “bourgeois” mores—that attacks
values that are most conducive to a free society and champions many that are
not.This ideology insists upon its own
predominance, demands and for the most part receives conformity to itself, and
demonizes with extreme intolerance anyone who dares to speak up against it.

We have
also seen that the ideology has adopted a coercive strategy with regard to
relations among people, as distinct from a slow accretion of respect and
affection that might be expected to follow from education and from unforced
experience.If something has seemed
desirable, especially in the context of the generous impulses that Americans
feel, the strategy has been to command it by law.We now have several decades of experience
with this commanded fraternity, and the results, even when viewed in the most
favorable light, are quite mixed.Not
surprisingly, more people feel themselves “victims” of one kind or another
today than ever before.

The adding
of “sexual orientation” to the list of “protected classes” seems generous, and
certainly appeals to Americans’ sense of good will, but notice that it will
make it contrary to state policy for anyone to voice a different view in
matters involving other faculty or students.Those who, on either religious or secular grounds, believe that there
are valid reasons for a social taboo against homosexual behavior are commanded
to be silent, and to cast their votes and express their opinions only in
conformity to the Regents policy.Such
compulsion is inherent in the entire strategy of commanded fraternity.

Notice,
too, that the proposal comes to us explicitly as one from a well-positioned
elite that hopes to act in circumvention of majority rule.This was evident when the president of the
Faculty Senate told us at our last meeting that the President of the Board of
Regents wants the Regents to put off any vote on the proposal until after the
Kansas Legislature has finished its current session.This highlights yet another facet of the
ideology I have described: it has perceived the “traditional” attitudes of many
Americans with contempt, and has often brushed aside its earlier commitment to
“majority rule” to impose, undemocratically, its compulsions.This should be a source of outrage to the
average Kansan, who is reduced to a state of impotency within an ideological
system that makes him little more than a pawn.

In such a
context, can I in good conscience vote in favor of a resolution that appears
quite innocent but that amounts to just another incremental step in a larger
maze of disastrous social engineering?The question answers itself.I
would urge other members of the Senate to join me in voting against it, but I
am quite prepared to stand alone in voicing these objections.